1.

a. Mr. Kim's heirs are:

1. Nam, Hope, and Jin being his legitimate children are compulsory heirs;
2. Hyung and Jon being his illegitimate children are also considered as compulsory heirs;
3. Ms. Min as his surviving spouse is also a compulsory heir.
b. The net hereditary estate of Mr. Kim is Php 30 000 000. I added all his properties and
cash (20M+10M+20M+5M) and divided it into 2 so it is equal to 27 500 000. Then I
added the 2 500 000 beach front property donated to him by his parents.
 
c. Nam, Hope, and Jin as legitimate children of Mr. Kim shall have 1/2 of hereditary
estate which is Php 15 000 000 to be distributed equally so they will receive Php 5 000
000 each.
Ms. Min being the surviving spouse is entitled to a legitime equivalent to 1 legitimate
child which is Php 5 000 000
Hyung and Jon being illegitimate children shall each have 1/2 of the share of 1 legitimate
child so they will have Php 2 500 000 each.
 
d. The free portion is Php 15 000 000. After deducting the legitimes of the surviving
spouse and illegitimate children what is left for free disposition would be Php 5 000 000. 
 
2.

a. The formal defects of the will are as follows:

1. The will is not correlatively numbered at the upper part of each page;
2. The attestation clause does not state that the testator's name was written by Maria by
the express direction of the testator;
3. The attestation clause likewise does not state that the will and every page thereof was
signed by the witnesses in the presence of one another. 
4. The attestation clause likewise has a typo on the number of pages stated within which
the will was written. 
 
b. We, the undersigned witnesses, do hereby affirm that the foregoing Last Will and
Testament, consisting of three (3) pages expect for this one of Mario D. Alcantara. We
certify that Maria D. Alcantara signed the will and every page thereof on behalf of the
testator by his express direction, in his presence and in the presence of us instrumental
witnesses. We, in turn witnessed and signed the will and each and every page thereof in
the presence of the testator and of one another. 

3
The disposition of 5% to Nam is valid because the testator is merely expressing his desire
to give him 5% and is not imposing on Nam any condition.
The disposition to the winner of the 2021 Philippine presidency is also valid because
although it is still not sure who will win as of the making of the will, it is at least
determinable when the time comes that the 2021 election is over. 
The disposition of 5% to the Benedictine monks of the Abbey of Our Lady of Monserrat
is invalid because it does not specify the specific property or sums of money to be
distributed by Nam. In order for a disposition in favor of specified classes, such property
or sums of money that consists of the 5% must be specifically designated. 
The disposition of an additional 5% to the wife is likewise valid subject to a condition
that she should not re-marry until their children are of legal age. Under the law, the
deceased-spouse may impose on the surviving spouse that he shall not remarry, however
such shall not be absolute.
 
The disposition to Mr. V is also valid because it merely states that 5% shall go to Mr. V
granted that he should not repudiate the same.

The net hereditary estate is Php 90 000. This shall be divided into 2, 1/2 for the legitime
of the compulsory heir and 1/2 for the free portion. B as the legitimate child and
compulsory heir of X will received Php 45 000 as his legitime. Under the law, if a
witness in a notarial will is also a instituted heir therein, the institution of heirs shall be
invalid. Thus the legacy for B shall be disregarded or considered void. D and E will stand
to receive their legacy of Php 20 000 each and the remaining shall be for the free
disposition. 

For example, A is married to B. They have. two children named C and D. Likewise E and
F are married and they have a child named G. G and D got married and birthed a son
named E. A loved his grandson so much that he donated a parcel of land to G. However,
a few years later, E died without any descendants. All his estate, including the land
donated by A, was passed onto G his mother. A is what we call as the origin because he
was the one who donated the land to E, the prepositius. When E died, the land was
transferred to G who is now the reservista. G now has the obligation to reserve the
property for the reservatarios, which are those that are within the 3rd degree of
consanguinity from the prepositus E and belonging to the line in which the property came
from which are A and D. 

6
No. Preterition is the omission of or the deprivation of a compulsory heir in the direct line
of his legitime. In the situation above, Maria, Mateo, and Magdalena are not compulsory
heirs in the direct line therefore there shall be no preterition. Moreover, Maria still stands
to receive a portion of the estate of Pedro as there is still some left for distribution.

The will that shall govern the distribution of the testator's estate shall be the 2018 will,
subject to the amendment of the 2019 will that gave the 50% of her estate previously
given to her nephews in her father side, to her nephews and nieces in the mother side.
Under the law, what has been expressly revoked or amended by a subsequent will cannot
be revived by the revocation of the such subsequent will. Thus the amendment by the
2019 will shall still apply. 

8
The concept of dependent relative revocation refers to the revocation of a former will
with the intention to make a new will in substitute for the old will, however the same was
invalid. For example, X made a will in 2019 instituting his friend B as an heir. However
in 2020 he learned that B was the reason that X was fired from his job. In a fit of rage X
decided to revoke the will and proceeded to write a second will and got 3 witnesses to
subscribe and attest to the same all in one day. The second will however was found to be
invalid because it was lacking in the attestation clause the number of pages wherein the
will was written and only had 2 signatures from the witnesses. Seeing as that the 2nd will
is invalid, the former will shall govern the dispositions of the estate of X.